UN Arms Trade Treaty Text Confirms Call to Ban Legal Possession of Firearms


As The Real Agenda informed readers last July 20, the United Nations is continuously seeking for ways to destroy individual rights. One of the most important of those rights is the one that allows people to own and bear arms. This right is different in every country, but in the eyes of the UN, such a right is equally threatening to its existence, no matter how constitutional it is. As we explained in our article The United Nations Plan to Disarm You and Arm itself, the UN had prepared a preliminary text to bamboozle nation-states into signing it as a binding agreement.

The United Nations has now released the latest draft, and possibly the final text of the Arms Trade Treaty, which as we told reader before seeks to eliminate the rights of individuals to own and bear arms. the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), is the beginning of the United Nations’ plan to carry out a globe wide disarmament of every nation on the planet, and with it the effective disarmament of each and every single person who lives in those nations. As expected, the warnings regarding the repercussions that such a treaty would have on the right to keep and bear arms, which exists in many countries, began immediately.

We have copied and pasted the original text below for everyone to read for themselves and create their own educated opinions about this new attempt to end with another constitutional right. Readers can find the text as originally published on the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights’ website here.


The States Parties to this Treaty.

  1. Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
  2. Recalling that the charter of the UN promotes the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources;
  3. Reaffirming the obligation of all State Parties to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, in accordance with the Charter of the UN;
  4. Underlining the need to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime;
  5. Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial rights and interests of States in the international trade of conventional arms;
  6. Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;
  7. Recognizing that development, human rights and peace and security, which are three pillars of the United Nations, are interlinked and mutually reinforcing.
  8. Recalling the United Nations Disarmament Commission guidelines on international arms transfers adopted by the General Assembly;
  9. Noting the contribution made by the 2001 UN Programme of Action to preventing combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as well as the 2001 Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in Firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;
  10. Recognizing the security, social, economic and humanitarian consequences of the illicit trade in and unregulated trade of conventional arms;
  11. Recognizing the challenges faced by victims of armed conflict and their need for adequate care, rehabilitation and social and economic inclusion;
  12. Bearing in mind that the women and children are particularly affected in situations of conflict and armed violence;
  13. Emphasizing that nothing in this treaty prevents States from exercising their right to adopt additional more rigorous measures consistent with the purpose of this Treaty;
  14. Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;
  15. Recognizing the active role that non-governmental organizations and civil society can play in furthering the goals and objectives of this Treaty; and

16. Emphasizing that regulation of the international trade in conventional arms should not

hamper international cooperation and legitimate trade in material, equipment and technology

for peaceful purposes;

Have agreed as follows:


Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, States Parties, In promoting the goals and objectives of this Treaty and implementing its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:

  1. The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense;

2. Settlement of individual disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

3. The rights and obligations of States under applicable international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law;

4. The responsibility of all States, in accordance with their respective international obligations, to effectively regulate and control international transfer of conventional arms as well as the primary responsibility of all States to in establishing and implementing their respective national export control systems; and

5. The necessity to implement this Treaty consistently and effectively and in a universal, objective and non-discriminatory manner.

Article 1

Goals and Objectives

Cognizant of the need to prevent and combat the diversion of conventional arms into the illicit market r to unauthorized end users through the improvement of regulation on the international trade in conventional arms,

The goals and objectives of this Treaty are:

-          For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;

-          To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use;

In order to:

-          Contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability;

-          Avoid that the international trade in conventional arms contributes to human suffering;

-           Promote cooperation, transparency and responsibility of States Parties in the trade in conventional arms, thus building confidence among States Parties,

Article 2

-          A. Covered Items

-          1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:

-          a. Battle Tanks

-          b. Armored combat vehicles

-          c. Large-caliber Artillery systems

-          d. Combat aircraft

-          e. Attack helicopters

-          f. Warships

-          g. Missiles and missile launchers

-          h. Small Arms and Light Weapons

-          2. Each State Party Shall establish and Maintain a national control system to regulate the export of munitions to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph a1 (a)-(h) are not circumvented by the export of munitions for those conventional arms.

-          3. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph A1 are not circumvented by the export of parts and components of those items.

-          4. Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law.

-          B. Covered Activities

-          1. This Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms covered in paragraph a1 above, and set out in Articles 6-10, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”

-          2. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by a State Party or its agents for its armed forces or law enforcement authorities operating outside its national territories, provided they remain under the State Party’s ownership.

Article 3

Prohibited Transfers

  1. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.
  2. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations, under international agreements, to which it is a Party, in particular those relating to the international transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.
  3. A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty for the purpose of facilitating the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949.

 Article 4

National Assessment

  1. Each State Party, in considering whether to authorize an export of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty, shall, prior to authorization and through national control systems, make an assessment specific to the circumstances of the transfer based on the following criteria:
  2. Whether the proposed export of conventional arms would:
    1. Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law;
    2. Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law;
    3. Contribute to peace and security;
    4. Be used to commit or facilitate an act constituting an offense under international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism or transnational organized crime, to which the transferring State is a Party;
  3. In making the assessment, the transferring State Party shall apply the criteria set out in Paragraph 2 consistently and in an objective and non-discriminatory manner and in accordance with the principles set out in this Treaty, taking into account relevant factors, including information provided by the importing State.

4. In assessing the risk pursuant to Paragraph 2, the transferring State Party may also take into consideration the establishment of risk mitigation measures including confidence-building measures and jointly developed programs by the exporting and importing State.

5. If in the view of the authorizing State Party, this assessment, which would include any actions that may be taken in accordance with Paragraph 4, constitutes a substantial risk, the State Party shall not authorize the transfer.

 Article 5

Additional Obligations

  1. Each State Party, when authorizing an export, shall consider taking feasible measures, including joint actions with other States involved in the transfer, to avoid the transferred arms:
  2. being diverted to the illicit market;
  3. be used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children;
  4. become subject to corrupt practices; or
  5. adversely impact the development of the recipient State.

Article 6

General Implementation

  1. Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner in accordance with the goals and objectives of this Treaty;
  2. The implementation of this Treaty shall not prejudice previous or future obligations undertaken with regards to international instruments, provided that those obligations are consistent with the goals and objectives of this Treaty. This Treaty shall not be cited as grounds for voiding contractual obligations under defense cooperation agreements concluded by States Parties to this Treaty.
  3. Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective, transparent and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms;
  4. Each State Party shall establish one or more national contact points to exchange information on matters related to the implementation of this Treaty. A State Party shall notify the Implementation Support Unit (See Article 13) of its national contact point(s) and keep the information updated.
  5. State Parties involved in a transfer of conventional arms shall, in a manner consistent with the principles of this Treaty, take appropriate measures to prevent diversion to the illicit market or to unauthorized end-users.  All State Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, with the exporting State to that end.
  6. . If a diversion is detected the State or States Parties that made the decision shall verify the State or States Parties that could be affected by such diversion, in particulate those State Parties that are involved in the transfer, without delay.
  7.  Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to regulate transfers of conventional arms within the scope of the Treaty.

 Article 7


  1. Each State Party shall conduct risk assessments, as detailed in Articles 4 and 5, whether to grant authorizations for the transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty.  State Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 consistently, taking into account all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-user in the country of final destination.
  2. Each State Party shall take measures to ensure all authorizations for the export of conventional arms under the scope of the Treaty are detailed and issued prior to the export.  Appropriate and relevant details of the authorization shall be made available to the importing, transit and transshipment State Parties, upon request.

Article 8


  1. Importing State Parties shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request, to the exporting State Party to assist the exporting State in its criteria assessment and to assist in verifying end users.
  2. State Parties shall put in place adequate measures that will allow them, where necessary, to monitor and control imports of items covered by the scope of the Treaty.  State Parties shall also adopt appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of imported items to unauthorized end users or to the illicit market.
  3. Importing State Parties may request, where necessary, information from the exporting State Party concerning potential authorizations.

Article 9


  1. Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty.

Article 10

Transit and Transshipment

  1. Each State Party shall adopt appropriate legislative, administrative or other measures to monitor and control, where necessary and feasible, conventional arms covered by this Treaty that transit or transship through territory under its jurisdiction, consistent with international law with due regard for innocent passage and transit passage;
  2. Importing and exporting States Parties shall cooperate and exchange information, where feasible and upon request, to transit and transshipment States Parties, in order to mitigate the risk of discretion;

Article 11

Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency

  1. Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible  of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively.
  2. Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and end users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.
  3. States Parties may report to the Implementation Support Unit on an annual basis any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market.
  4. Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to States Parties of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty; including inter alia, domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit.
  5. Each State Party shall submit annually to the Implementation Support Unit by 31 May a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of items included in Article 2, Paragraph A1. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. The report submitted to the Implementation Support Unit may contain the same type of information submitted by the State Party to other relevant UN bodies, including the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Reports will be consistent with national security sensitivities or be commercially sensitive.



  1. Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.



  1. This Treaty hereby establishes an Implementation Support Unit to assist States Parties in its implementation.
  2. The ISU shall consist of adequate staff, with necessary expertise to ensure the mandate entrusted to it can be effectively undertaken, with the core costs funded by States Parties.
  3. The implementation Support Unit, within a minimized structure and responsible to States Parties, shall undertake the responsibilities assigned to it in this Treaty, inter alia:
    1. Receive distribute reports, on behalf of the Depository, and make them publicly available;
    2. Maintain and Distribute regularly to States Parties the up-to-date list of national contact points;
    3. Facilitate the matching of offers and requests of assistance for Treaty implementation and promote international cooperation as requested;
    4. Facilitate the work of the Conference of States Parties, including making arrangements and providing the necessary service es for meetings under this Treaty; and
    5. Perform other duties as mandated by the Conference of States Parties.



  1. States Parties shall designate national points of contact to act as a liaison on matters relating to the implementation of this Treaty.
  2. States Parties shall cooperate closely with one another, as appropriate, to enhance the implementation of this Treaty consistent with their respective security interests and legal and administrative systems.

States Parties are encouraged to facilitate international cooperation, including the exchange of information on matters of mutual interest regarding the implementation and application of this Treaty in accordance with their national legal system. Such voluntary exchange of information may include, inter alia, information on national implementation measures as well as information on specific exporters, importers and brokers and on any prosecutions brought domestically, consistent with commercial and proprietary protections and domestic laws, regulations and respective legal and administrative systems.

4.   Each State Party is encouraged to maintain consultations and to share information, as appropriate, to support the implementation of this Treaty, including through their national contact points.

5. States Parties shall cooperate to enforce the provisions of this Treaty and combat breaches of this Treaty, including sharing information regarding illicit activities and actors to assist national enforcement and to counter and prevent diversion. States Parties may also exchange information on lessons learned in relation to any aspect of this Treaty, to develop best practices to assist national implementation.

Article 15
International Assistance

  1. In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.
  2. States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.
  3. Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.

Article 16
Signature, Ratification, Acceptance, Approval or Accession

  1. This Treaty shall be open for signature on [date] at the United Nations Headquarters in New York by all States and regional integration organizations.
  2. This Treaty is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the Signatories.
  3. This Treaty shall be open for accession by any state and regional integration organization that has not signed the Treaty.

4. The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the Depositary.

5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States and regional integration organizations of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Treaty, and of the receipt of notices.

6. “Regional integration organization” shall mean an organization constituted by sovereign States of a given region, to which its Member States have transferred competence in respect of matters governed by this Treaty and which has been duly authorized, in accordance with its internal procedures, to sign, ratify, accept, approve or accede to it.

7.  At the time of its ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, a regional integration organization shall declare the extent of its competence with respect to matters governed by this Treaty.  Such organizations shall also inform the Depositary of any relevant modifications in the extent of it competence.

8.  References to “State Parties” in the present Treaty shall apply to such organizations within the limits of their competence.

Article 17

Entry into Force

  1. This Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of the deposit of the sixty-fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval with the Depositary.
  2. For any State or regional integration organization that deposits its instruments of accession subsequent to the entry into force of the Treaty, the Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of deposit of its instruments of accession.
  3. For the purpose of Paragraph 1 and 2 above, any instrument deposited by a regional integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by Member States of that organization.

Article 18

Withdrawal and Duration

  1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.
  2. Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties from this Convention.  It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties and to the Depositary.  The instrument of withdrawal shall include a full explanation of the reasons motivating this withdrawal.
  3. A state shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this treaty while it was a party to the Treaty, including any financial obligations, which may have accrued.

Article 19

  1. Each State party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may formulate reservations unless the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of this Treaty.

 Article 20

  1. At any time after the Treaty’s entry into force, a State Party may propose an amendment to this Treaty.
  2. Any proposed amendment shall be submitted in writing to the Depository, which will then circulate the proposal to all States Parties, not less than 180 days before next meeting of the Conference of States Parties. The amendment shall be considered at the next Conference of States Parties if a majority of States Parties notify the Implementation Support Unit that they support further consideration of the proposal no later than 180 days after its circulation by the Depositary.
  3. Any amendment to this Treaty shall be adopted by consensus, or if consensus is not achieved, by two-thirds of the States Parties present and voting at the Conference of States Parties. The Depositary shall communicate any amendment to all States Parties.
  4. A proposed amendment adopted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Article shall enter into force for all States Parties to the Treaty that have accepted it, upon deposit with the Depositary. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of accession.

 Article 21
Conference of States Parties

  1. The Conference of States Parties shall be convened not later than once a year following the entry into force of this Treaty. The Conference of States Parties shall adopt rules of procedure and rules governing its activities, including the frequency of meetings and rules concerning payment of expenses incurred in carrying out those activities.

The Conference of States Parties shall:
a. Consider and adopt recommendations regarding the implementation of this Treaty, in particular the promotion of its universality; TR

b. Consider amendments to this Treaty;

c. Consider and decide the work and budget of the Implementation Support Unit;

d. Consider the establishment of any subsidiary bodies as may be necessary to improve the functioning of the Treaty;

e. Perform any other function consistent with this Treaty.

3. If circumstances merit, an exceptional meeting of the State Parties may be convened if required and resources allow.

Article 22
Dispute Settlement

  1. States Parties shall consult and cooperate with each other to settle any dispute that may arise with regard to the interpretation or application of this Treaty.
  2. States Parties shall settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Treat though negotiations or other peaceful means of the Parties mutual choice.
  3. States Parties may pursue, by mutual consent, third party arbitration to settle any dispute between them, regarding issues concerning the implementation of this Treaty.

Article 23
Relations with States not party to this Treaty

  1. States Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 to all transfers of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty to those not party to this Treaty.

 Article 24
Relationship with other instruments

  1. States Parties shall have the right to enter into agreements on the trade in conventional arms with regards to the international trade in conventional arms, provided that those agreements are compatible with their obligations under this Treaty and do not undermine the objects and purposes of this Treaty.

 Article 25
Depositary and Authentic Texts

  1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the Depositary of this Treaty.
  2. The original text of this Treaty, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic.

Obama implies Second Amendment is for Hunting

Obama spoke publicly of his intention to curb the possession of firearms and implied dissenters are potential mentally ill people.

By PAUL J. WATSON | INFOWARS.com | JULY 26, 2012

President Barack Obama has caved to pressure from his supporters and finally exploited last week’s Aurora massacre to begin the push for gun control, erroneously claiming during a speech last night that the second amendment is about hunting and target practice.

“We recognise the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage,” said Obama during remarks made at a National Urban League Conference in New Orleans.

In reality, the founders put the second amendment in the bill of rights not to ensure Americans could enjoy hunting or target practice, but as a protection against government tyranny.

As Howard University School of Law’s Thomas M. Moncure, Jr. explains, the right to bear arms was derived from English common law and was clearly focused around having an armed citizen militia to protect against abuses by the state.

As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, the right to bear arms was seen as a means of protecting liberties against government intrusion. Madison noted that in “several kingdoms of Europe … governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Patrick Henry also made it clear that firearms were for self-defense and not duck hunting when he stated, “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?”

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence,” said George Washington, adding that “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference.”

Congressman Ron Paul has also outlined how the assault rifle ban is merely an end run around the second amendment.

“The second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time,” said Paul.

Read Full Article →

The United Nations Plan to Disarm You and Arm itself

This is the Treaty that no citizen of any country should allow public servants to introduce, adopt or vote in favor of; neither in part nor in full.


Everyone knows the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or at least has heard about some of the most important rights that it contains. There are, however, two articles I’d like to concentrate on as a preamble to the main topic of this article. Those articles are number 28 and number 29. So let’s cite them here in full and try to understand their implications.

Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows:

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Please understand that the United Nations was created back in 1945, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was officially adopted on December 10, 1948 in Paris France. That is just three years after the creation of the United Nations itself. Now, please call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but does not article 28 resemble a lot the type of speech the politicians of the world and the main stream media have been filling airtime with for the past three to five years? What article 28 basically says is that we are all entitled to a World Order. If this term is new to you, please do your own research and get yourself familiar with it. An international social order is what Bankers, Politicians and main stream media outlets have been claiming for more strongly in the past 24 months.

Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is closely related to the next article; number 29. In essence, article 28 says that we are entitled to having an international social order in which the content set on the declaration is fully realized. So, let’s tie it to the following article in order to understand the magnitude of their meaning before we move on.

Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows:

“Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

The complete article 29 has serious implications, but it is especially the last sentence, together with article 28, what should make anyone who the most minimum sense of self-preservation fall off their chair. What the last sentence of article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights means is that all of the rights supposedly given to any person under that declaration are void, should such rights are exercised in a manner that opposes the principles that govern the United Nations. So, on one side we have an organization that specifically intends to create a world order, and on the other it affirms their intention to limit or eliminate a human’s rights if it considers that those rights infringe its own existence.

If this connection between articles 28 and 29 are not serious enough to get you moving, let me add another caveat. The United Nations as an organization possesses the legal standing of a person. Although it sounds paradoxical, it is exactly as it is written. The UN is an organization conceived by monopoly men that is legally understood as being a person.

Please keep the information presented up to this point when reading further.

A few years ago, rumors about how the United Nations was considering some kind of non-binding agreement or treaty that would ask member nations to adopt tighter arms controls saw the day of light. At that point, it all seemed unclear and mere speculation. Then, the supposed idea for the creation of a non-binding agreement got a name. Today, it is publicly being identified as the Arms Trade Treaty. Although its name suggests that this may be a kind of plan to limit, control or prohibit the sale of arms as a way to avoid so-called illegal arms trade, — of the kind of Fast&Furious — it is not so.

As the title of this article describes it, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), is the beginning of the United Nations’ plan to carry out a globe wide disarmament of every nation on the planet, and with it the effective disarmament of each and every single person who lives in those nations. As expected, the warnings regarding the repercussions that such a treaty would have on the right to keep and bear arms, which exists in many countries, began immediately. Most of those warnings are sounding in countries like the United States, where 130 Congressmen wrote to Barack Obama voicing their concerns:

“We write to express our concerns regarding the negotiation of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the text of which is expected to be finalized at a conference to be held in New York during the month of July…. The U.S. must not accept an ATT that infringes on our constitutional rights, particularly the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment.”

In addition to Congress, the National Riffle Association (NRA) also sounded the alarms on June 29, warning about the threat that the ATT poses to the rights of the citizens, which it believes, would be violated if the United States were to adopt or accept such a treaty:

“… the Senate has final say on treaties, and stating their unequivocal opposition to any treaty that would affect civilian ownership of firearms, challenge the authority of Congress to regulate firearms within the United States, or call for an international gun registry.”

Although most of the text of the treaty now being discussed in New York has been kept off the public eyes, some very revealing portions were made available which help us understand what this treaty intends to achieve. Take a look at the following sentence: “United Nations agencies have come across many situations in which various types of conventional weapons have been … misused by lawful owners”. That is why the UN is now proposing that a new Arms Trade Treaty be created to “regulate in ways that would … minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.” So the ATT is meant to regulate those people who right now own fire arms because the UN thinks that some owners have, or may in the future misuse the existing laws that govern over the purchase, sale and possession of fire arms in each country.

As explained by Larry Greenly in his article Oppose Signing and Ratification of the UN Arms Treaty, the United Nations considers gun ownership a failure and is proposing an arms treaty in order to curtail such a ‘failure’. Mr. Greenly correctly states that “the U.N. regards gun ownership — even under national constitutional protection and for lawful activities — as a cultural failure that it needs to redress and that it has no patience at all with the idea that self-defense is an inherent right.”

Remember that idea that the treaty was not going to be binding? Well, the tides have changed and now the UN is talking about a completely binding resolution for all of the signing member states. What reason does the UN and its supporting institutions provide to agree on and enact an arms treaty? “It has been estimated that approximately three quarters of a million people are killed each year in armed violence. Millions more lives are blighted through injury, displacement and destroyed livelihoods,” said UN Foreign Office Minister, Alistair Burt. At this point it is important to bring up the fact that during the 20th century, governments murdered between 260,000,000 and 350,000,000 people. Doesn’t it make more sense then to create a treaty that did away with violent forms of government if all we want is to protect people from dangerous, irresponsible use of arms?

Despite Congress and the NRA showing their concern about the ATT, there are still people, especially in the blogosphere and forums who say that, even if approved, the treaty wouldn’t have any impact, because this kind of agreements cannot overwrite the Constitution. That is exactly what everyone thought before the National Defense Authorization Act was approved, before the Patriot Act was passed, before Barack Obama said he would govern by issuing executive orders if he had to, before he and Leon Panetta said that the Pentagon did not need permission from Congress to carry out wars abroad, if the UN authorized them. If that type of discourse is not clear enough to understand that the UN and the corporations that founded it are in charge, then these bloggers and forum participants are missing a screw.

The Arms Trade Treaty is also underestimated because some of its details resemble or originate from ideas contained in the 1961 Freedom from War document signed by John Kennedy. Let’s see what that document says. Among its objectives and goals, the text says that nation-states adhere to common standards of justice and international conduct. This is reinforced by the principles established in the document, which say that “As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened”. The disarmament of all nations is scheduled in three stages. In stage 2, the plan is the “establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations.” In other words, the Freedom from War treaty is a United Nations strengthening, nation-state weakening tool, which would be further empowered by the new Arms Trade Treaty, which would give a global reach to the powers already vested upon the UN.

An interesting point to make about the Freedom from War document and the new United Nations Arms Trade Treaty is that in both cases the language used to describe the goals, stages, requirements and so on are so vague, that it simply invites any interpretation that the people that get the power desire to adopt. That right there is the most dangerous part of the whole issue. Vagueness invites abuse and abuse brings about repression.

When it comes to learning our lessons, especially the ones related to tyranny, there isn’t a better way to do so than by looking back to history. In this case, we will look at the history of the United Nations preparation for the period of time we are entering into right now, and that period is the one where the UN will make a strong push to disarm all nations and its citizens. One reference for the analysis of recent history takes us to the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. Another reference is a document called Removing Military Weapons from Civilian Hands.

When describing the use of small weapons by citizens or civilians, the above cited document says that “such weapons make it increasingly difficult for society to rebuild itself following a period of conflict… … This reality makes it more difficult for the State to regain the monopoly of force“. The United Nations believes that the government monopoly of force should be the standard state of affairs. As explained and sourced earlier, we all know by studying history, what a government monopoly of force resulted in last century. So, why would the UN be advocating for a step back in the direction of the mass murder of hundreds of millions of people?

The reason why the UN promotes a monopoly of force in the hands of the States is because while this organization is working hard on disarming individuals, it is also working even harder to become the sole policing power of the planet. It will be in complete power of the most dangerous weapons that exist today, if nations decide to go along the propaganda put out by the UN to “live free from war” which would turn the UN in the unique administrator of all weapons, small and large. What advantages would exist if people were completely disarmed?

For starters, “it would make it hard for anyone to lobby for the maintenance of the people’s right to keep and bear arms,” says the document, because the UN’s initiative would be seen as an effort offer people safety from guns. This view of what the right to keep and bear arms means comes from the idea that people owning guns is about them being able to go hunting whenever they please. Well, in reality the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not about hunting, but about the right of the people to defend themselves from the oppression of the government and those who carry out its deeds.

The right to keep and bear arms is a legitimate right, because it was constitutionally adopted and it is written on the document that countries use as the base to conduct business in many parts of the world. That brings us to ask, where does the UN get its legitimacy? For that we need to go back to the founding of the United Nations. Who is the founder of this organization? The key proponent of the UN was Alger Hiss, an American lawyer and communist spy for the Stalin regime, as testified in Congress under oath by Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist Party member. Other founders of the UN include the Rockefeller family, and some other 30 or 40 members of the Council on Foreign Relations members, among others. Rockefeller himself donated the land on which the UN building sits today. Many people will say, ‘well, but all those countries agreed to create the UN and signed the document that legitimized its creation’. I wouldn’t characterize their actions in legitimizing the UN to more than participating in the signing of the text that Hiss, the Rockefellers and the other globalists had written. In other words, the UN has no legitimacy to be the international body that it is today, since the founders of such a body were not the nations of the world, but Mr. Hiss, the Rockefellers and the other members of the CFR.

Having addressed the issue of legitimacy, let’s continue analysing recent history of the UN attempts to disarm us all. A 2011 document written by Sarah Parker and titled “Improving the Effectiveness of the Programme of Action on Small Arms“, hosted on the website of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, gives us another insight into what the United Nations has in stake. The main goal of this document is to shed more light on the UN initiative to limit and later eliminate the possession of small arms by civilians. In order to achieve their goal, the globalists behind the UN want to implement policies of marking and tracing firearms, as well as creating a digital registration database of all arms in the hands of civilians. The UN also wants to “dispose and destroy” all arms that it collects from individuals and governments, establish “moratorium on the manufacture of small firearms”, which is what Obama has announced he will do in his second term as president of the United States and what New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has begun to do.

Under the guidelines of the above mentioned Programme of Action, the UN is calling for more regulation of firearms ownership. “Greater controls for firearms owners is required”. The document also describes how the UN lacks the financial support to create an electronic record of who owns what, and how the nations should chip in to create a fund that would enable the UN to be able to trace all firearms. What the UN is proposing then, is that each country creates a national gun registration database, whose oversight can be transferred to the UN so that it does not cost a penny to the globalists behind the organization.

There is a need to “train law enforcement providers in weapons collection and destruction:. Remember what happened to New Orleans residents after hurricane Katrina? In case you are not aware, the US National Guard took to the streets of New Orleans to illegally confiscate firearms from its legal owners. Members of the Guard kicked down doors, beat homeowners and confiscated all kinds of firearms to “keep people safe” from them. “Training is needed in modern methods of destruction,” continues to describe the document.

Under the section labeled as Public Awareness, the Programme of Action says that it is necessary to enhance the UN’s campaign to get rid of all firearms and that this campaign needs to have an extensive social reach. It also says that such campaigns should include ways to pacify the people who are against surrendering their guns for fear of becoming helpless should any governmental abuse take place, which the document calls false perceptions. Really? After 350,000,000 deaths the UN sees mistrust of governments use of force as a false perception?

Of course, the failure of the UN to end with such perception requires to carry out illegal arms trade — such as Fast & Furious — in order to manufacture the need to have an Arms Trade Treaty. And as if the existence of illegal arms trade wasn’t enough of a fake excuse to bring about the regulation of the individual right to keep and bear arms to defend oneself from oppressive governments and your standard criminal, the UN also cites the fact that the creation of a binding agreement would globally legitimize their attempt to limit ownership of firearms.

To sum up, an illegitimate organization created by globalists and bankers in 1945 has found a way to request the complete disarmament of every country in the world and every citizen in those countries under the excuse that a more peaceful world can be achieved in that organization alone becomes the sole owner of all weaponry that exists on the surface of the planet, in space and under the ground. That same organization, in its Universal declaration of Human Rights states that we all have rights which can be exercised, unless the UN decides the exercise of those rights infringes its existence. Under the UN plans, there needs to be only one POLICE that secures peace and prevents conflict by imposing force over anyone who dares challenge its reign over all nations and individuals. This organization by all known as the United Nations has also lovingly provided us with the right to live under a centralized social world order which it itself will command.

How is that for a peek into the future of our lives under the reign of the banker, globalist run United Nations and its Arms Trade Treaty?

Venezuela Bans Sales of Firearms and Ammunition

BBC | JUNE 1, 2012

Until now, anyone with a gun permit could buy arms from a private company.

Under the new law, only the army, police and certain groups like security companies will be able to buy arms from the state-owned weapons manufacturer and importer.

The ban is the latest attempt by the government to improve security and cut crime ahead of elections in October

Venezuela saw more than 18,000 murders last year and the capital, Caracas, is thought to be one of the most dangerous cities in Latin America.

‘Must do more’

The government has been running a gun amnesty in the run-up to the introduction of the new law to try to encourage people to give up their illegal arms without fear of consequences.

One member of the public in Caracas told the BBC: “They’re killing people every day. This law is important but they need to do more, they’re not doing enough now.”

Hugo Chavez’s government says the ultimate aim is to disarm all civilians, but his opponents say the police and government may not have the capacity or the will to enforce the new law.

Criminal violence is set to be a major issue in presidential elections later in the year.

Campaign group The Venezuela Violence Observatory said last year that violence has risen steadily since Mr Chavez took office in 1999.

Several Latin American countries have murder rates far higher than the global average of 6.9 murders per 100,000 people.

According to a recent United Nations report, South America, Central America and the Caribbean have the highest rates of murder by firearms in the world.

It found that over 70% of all homicides in South America are as a results of guns – in Western Europe, the figure was closer to 25%.

U.S. government admits arming Mexican drug gangs

by Mike Adams
July 8, 2011

It is now a widely-reported fact that under the Obama administration, U.S. federal agents actively placed over 30,000 fully-functional weapons into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, then halted all surveillance and tracking activities of where those weapons were going.

This is not a conspiracy theory, nor a piece of fiction. It is now an openly-admitted fact that this was pulled off by the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, more commonly called “ATF”) under orders from Washington. The program was called “Fast and Furious.”

Even Reuters is now covering the news and reporting how members of Congress are outraged to learn that this happened (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011…).

Details are also starting to leak about the cover-up inside ATF, which was led by the U.S. Attorney in Arizona, Dennis Burke, an Obama appointee

(http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/06/i…). The engineering of the illegal gun running went right up the chain of command to the director of the ATF, Kenneth Melson, who is now expected to resign. The real planning of this event went even higher up the chain of command in Washington, possibly all the way to Attorney General Eric Holder (http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/21/i…).

Among the firearms sold to the Mexican drug gangs were AK-47s, thousands of pistols and, remarkably, .50-caliber rifles which are typically used to disable vehicles or carry out sniper-based assassinations at extremely long ranges (up to two miles). The mainstream media is now reporting that these weapons are turning up in violent crimes being committed in Phoenix, Arizona. As an ABC news affiliate reports:

“According to the testimony of three Phoenix ATF agents, including Dodson, hundreds of weapons are now on the streets in the United States and Mexico, possibly in the hands of criminals. Dodson estimated the number could be as many as 1,800 weapons. He estimated agents in the Phoenix field division facilitated the sale of approximately 2,500 weapons to straw purchasers. A few hundred have been recovered.”

How the “Fast and Furious” program put thousands of weapons directly into the hands of Mexican drug gangs

Here’s how “Fast and Furious” worked: Under orders from Washington, ATF agents were specifically told to acquire these weapons using “straw” buyers in the USA, find new buyers in Mexican drug gangs, then sell the weapons and “lose track” of them. Although some agents raised concerns about the insanity, they were overruled by the higher-ups in Washington who wanted to pursue this policy for their own reasons. “It made no sense to us either, it was just what we were ordered to do, and every time we questioned that order there was punitive action,” said Phoenix Special Agent John Dodson.

But what could be the reasons for Washington initiating such a program in the first place? Why would the Obama administration actively send 30,000 sniper rifles, assault weapons and firearms into Mexico even while claiming to follow an anti-gun stance back in the USA?

To answer that question, you need to understand P.R.S — Problem, Reaction, Solution. It is the “playbook” that governments use to get what they want, which usually involves: 1) Disarming their populations, 2) Taking away all their rights and freedoms, and then 3) Ruling over their people as tyrants with complete power.

Precisely such an effort is now underway in the United States, led by the Obama administration which has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be an enemy of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

How Problem, Reaction, Solution really works

If you’re the U.S. government, you can’t just announce a new program to disarm the country, end the Bill of Rights and install yourself as the King. People won’t go for it if you try to sell it that way. Instead, you need to find a way to get people to BEG you to do all that.

So you need a way to put people in a state of mind where they are terrified of drugs, terrified of guns and terrified of the border violence — to the point where they insist that somebody in Washington do something about it.

Therefore, you first need a way to cause the problem that results in all the violence that people react to. You effectively need to create violence and then wait for people to beg you to stop it.

This is where the Obama administration’s program to send 30,000 firearms into Mexico comes into play. If you want to cause gun violence and drug war violence, what better way to accomplish it than to just arm all the bad guys?

Think about it: 30,000 weapons in the hands of drug criminals! Then all you have to do is sit back and wait for all the violence to kick in. And it has kicked in — in huge numbers. Shootings on the border, kidnappings, armed conflict across the border with U.S. border agents, and so on. Violent crimes in Arizona are now being committed with these very same weapons the ATF trafficked into the hands of Mexican drug gangs.

As Judicial Watch president Tim Fitton explains, his belief is that Operation Fast and Furious was purely an anti-gun political ploy from the Obama administration, designed to put more guns into the hands of criminals as a justification for confiscating guns from all citizens. He adds, “I think another major part of this story is that the narrative of the Obama administration and the ATF is that, ‘wouldn’t it be great if we could tie guns, as part of our anti-gun agenda, to the Mexican civil war, as opposed to, you know, our lack of enforcement of the drug laws or failure to protect the borders.’” (http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/21/i…)

And here’s the real kicker: Of all the weapons now being confiscated by police in Mexico, an astonishing 70 percent came from the United States. So now you have a situation where the USA is actually arming the criminals in Mexico and destabilizing that country’s entire system of law and order. The drug gangs are at war with the police there, and thanks to thinks like U.S.-supplies AK-47s and .50-caliber sniper rifles, the drug gangs are winning!

ATF can now demand more power and bigger budgets

Getting back to the U.S. issue, if you’re the DEA or the ATF, you now have 30,000 more reasons to have your own budgets increased. There’s a wave of violence coming across the border! The drug gangs are out of control! They’re shooting back!

Well gee, I wonder why? It’s because the ATF actually sold them these 30,000 rifles under orders from Washington.

And now the Obama administration is, predictably, saying there’s so much “gun violence” in the Southern USA that new laws are needed to curb gun sales there.

Seriously? New laws? What about the 30,000 guns the ATF openly and admittedly sold to the Mexican drug gangs? Wasn’t that already a violation of law?

It all comes back to Problem, Reaction, Solution, you see. Want to keep the useless War on Drugs going a little longer? Just dump a few thousand pounds of cocaine into the hands of criminals and let ‘em run loose with it. Want to beef up the budgets of the ATF? Just distribute 30,000 illegal weapons into the hands of drug gangs and then sit back and wait for people to beg for your help. Want to justify a war on “terror” in the Middle East? Dream up some stupid story about Weapons of Mass Destruction and then launch a war.

For every power-hungry tyrannical agenda in Washington, there’s a false flag operation that will make it come true.

If the U.S. government would actively arm drug gangs, in what other ways might it betray the American people?

Now that you know the truth about how Washington put 30,000 guns into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, it naturally makes you start to wonder about the government’s involvement with things like vaccines.

Want to make people so afraid of infectious disease that they beg for vaccines? Just release an infectious disease into the population yourself! It’s a simple matter, really.

Want to get the public to beg for new food safety regulations? Just release e.coli into the food supply and then wait for the deaths to be reported in the news. All of a sudden people are demanding more food safety regulations.

Want to justify military imperialism and expansion? Just stage your own terrorist attack against your own country! Then magically find the passports of some terrorists at the scene of the crime and blame the whole thing on them.

When theory becomes fact

You see, all this used to exist solely in the realm of conspiracy theory. A few years ago, if you even suggested this kind of thing was going on, you were called a kook. But now it’s an established fact being reported by Reuters, Washington Post and other major news outlets. Now the U.S. government has been forced to admit that yes, it actively delivered 30,000 firearms into the hands of Mexican drug gangs and then intentionally stopped tracking where they went.

This is no longer conspiracy theory. It’s conspiracy FACT. And similar types of operations are being planned right now for other agendas the government has in mind: Taking away your Fourth Amendment rights, for example. How do you accomplish that? Just stage an airport terrorism attack, just like the one the TSA was caught rehearsing in Minnesota


Want to take away peoples’ Second Amendment rights? Just brainwash some low-IQ psychopath to walk into a shopping mall and start blazing away with fully automatic weapons that were provided to him by the ATF!

It’s simple, you see. Pick a topic, choose an agenda, then cause the problem yourself. Then sit back and wait for the reaction. Works every time.

The CDC pulled the same stunt back in the 1980′s with AIDS. At a time when the CDC was facing severe budget cuts, it actually hyped up the whole AIDS epidemic and started releasing complete scientific fictions as if they were fact. The disease mongering by the CDC caused widespread fear and panic across the country, earning it huge budget increases from the U.S. government.

This is all fully documented in the movie House of Numbers, by the way, using recorded video interviews from many of the key scientists involved in the whole fiasco who finally went on record to tell the truth. Almost everything you’ve been fed about AIDS is a fabrication or a distortion of the scientific truth. Watch these astonishing videos to see for yourself:


The American government is working AGAINST you, not for you

The point in all this is that much of what you see happening in the world today in terms of terrorism, the drug war, infectious disease and health care are just fabricated, staged events actually pulled off by the very people who stand to benefit from the reaction!

Suckers and sheeple always believe the mainstream news at face value. They believe we’re under attack from terrorists who bring down tall buildings, or we’re being assaulted by Mexican drug gangs on the border, or we’re threatened by the Swine Flu. That’s what suckers are supposed to believe, you see: That your government is never working against you… it’s always working FOR you, right?

But intelligent people know the opposite is true: Your government is usually plotting against you and trying to figure out how to expand its power, expand its reach, reduce your freedoms and control your life. This is accomplished by unleashing the very problems that the government claims to be fighting to prevent.

The government, for example, says it’s trying to solve our nation’s economic problems. And how does it accomplish that? By generating trillions of dollars in new fiat currency and handing it over to the criminals running Wall Street. This has the net effect of stealing money from everybody else through dollar devaluation.

How does the government solve our national health care crisis? By enacting Obamacare, which mandates that more people buy into a system that has utterly failed to serve the health interests of the American people in the first place!

So at the very same time the government says it’s working to improve the economy, it’s actually stealing from you behind your back. At the very same time the government says it’s trying to stop cancer, its own health-related agencies (National Cancer Institute, for example) are openly engaged in massive disinformation campaigns that spread false information about sunlight being “dangerous” to your health (while conveniently ignoring the truth about vitamin D and its cancer preventive properties).

The government says it wants to make your food safer, and yet the USDA keeps approving genetically modified foods that are essentially massive biological experiments that cause widespread infertility and disease.

The same story goes on and on… with fluoride in the water, mercury in dental fillings, aspartame in diet sodas, pesticide use in agriculture and so on. At nearly every turn, the government itself is actively plotting against the People to keep them financially enslaved, biologically diseased and mentally ignorant.

Shipping guns into Mexico, you see, is just a tiny part of the big picture that’s going on today in the USA. The same process — Problem, Reaction, Solution — is in use almost everywhere in government at both the state and federal level.

Big Government is the enemy of peace and freedom

Bureaucrats hate to lose their jobs, and if there’s a way to stage something that makes them suddenly look more important, they won’t hesitate to roll it out. The U.S. government, just so you know, has been actively engaged in weapons trafficking, drug running and counterfeiting for decades. If you or I did what our own government does every single day, we’d be arrested as felony criminals. But when the government runs guns into Mexico, or traffics in cocaine, or prints counterfeit dollar bills that have no backing with real value, somehow it’s all okay.

Amazing how our own government has now turned into the very criminals that it claims to be protecting us against, isn’t it? Who are the real terrorists in America? The ATF agents running guns into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, of course. And the FBI agents who set up Arab-looking patsies to try to set off fake bombs that the FBI actually assembled for them!

By the way, Alex Jones (www.PrisonPlanet.com) has been covering all this for years. He’s been saying this all along, and time and time again, he’s been proven right. I realize his presentation style may seem a little intense to some people, but at the end of the day, Alex Jones is far more accurate at decoding what’s really going on behind the scenes than any mainstream news channel or newspaper. Here’s an article from InfoWars on this very topic:http://www.infowars.com/obama-admin…

I’m scheduled to host the Alex Jones show next week and will likely be discussing more about the ATF’s gun-running activities in Mexico. In the mean time, stay tuned to NaturalNews.com for more stories that aren’t afraid to report the truth about what’s really happening in our world today.


Related Links:









Partner Links